New from Cambridge University Press!

Edited By Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt

This book "fills the unquestionable need for a comprehensive and up-to-date handbook on the fast-developing field of pragmatics" and "includes contributions from many of the principal figures in a wide variety of fields of pragmatic research as well as some up-and-coming pragmatists."

Review of Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts

Review: Itakura, Hiroko (2001) Conversational Dominance andGender: A study of Japanese speakers in first and secondlanguage contexts. John Benjamins Publishing Company,hardback ISBN 1-58811-057-5, xviii+231pp, $77.00, Pragmaticsand Beyond New Series 89.

Reviewed by: Guido Oebel, Faculty of Culture and Education,Saga (Japan) National University

Synopsis in brief:

Hiroko Itakura's empirical study on 'Conversational Dominanceand Gender' is the 89th volume published thus far within the'Pragmatics and Beyond New Series'. According to the author, herbook explores the notion of dominance in conversation,particularly gender dominance and its pragmatic transfer inJapanese as L1 and English as L2 conversation. Despite theimportance of dominance in research areas Itakura notes so farscholars have failed to develop a systematic approach to theanalysis of dominance in conversation as only then it was possibleto test the credibility of the prevalent view that Japanese mendominate Japanese women in sociolinguistic terms. She considersher claim pertinently relevant in view of the present contextwhere traditional gender realtionships between Japanese malesand females are going through a rapid change. Likewise, withouta comprehensive operational analysis of dominance, research inSLA would not be able to explain how patterns of dominance in L1and L2 are related.

In order to investigate relationships between gender andconversation dominance and for the purpose of pragmaticallytransferring such patterns, Itakura considers it necessary tooperationalize the notion of dominance in such a way facilitatingthe comparison of speakers' interactional behaviour in aconversation on the basis of recorded data. That is why theobjective of Itakura's book is -at the theoretical level- to outlinea framework for the analysis of conversational dominance basedon a critical synthesis of insights from Conversational Analysis,the Birmingham school of discourse analysis, and dialogicalanalysis. Within this framework, conversational dominance refersto an overall pattern of asymmetry measured in terms of thedistribution of controlling actions between speakers over thecourse of an interaction along (1) sequential, (2) participatory and(3) quantitative dimensions.

This analytical framework is developed in Cpaters 2 and 3 whileChapter 2 reviews previous studies of gender dominance within aswell as outside Japan. Chapter 3 then deals with exploring thenotion of conversational dominance on the basis of differentapproaches to oral interaction, proposing a framework foranalysing it.

Chapter 4 describes the research methods for providing empiricalevidence regarding the influence of gender on dominance in L1Japanese and on L1-to-L2 pragmatic transfer of dominancepatterns among L1 native Japanese speakers. In Chapter 5Itakura tries to establish whether theoretical assumptions thatsequential dominance is the most important dimension ofconversational dominance are justified. Chapters 6 and 7 pursuethe implications of the quantitative analysis presented in Chapter4 by examining selected dyadic interactions qualitatively. Thefinal chapter draws conclusions regarding the three corequestions addressed in the study while simultaneously proposingdirections for future research:

(1) How can conversational dominance be analysed?Investigation of this question aims to provide systematic methodsfor the analysis of conversational dominance.

(2) Do Japanese men tend to dominate Japanese women in L1conversation?Investigating this question aims to enhance one's understandingof the role of gender in conversational dominance in Japaneseamong L1 Japanese speakers.

(3) Are patterns of gender dominance in Japanese L2 (English)conversation similar to those found in L1 (Japanese)conversation?

By addressing this question, Itakura hopes to deepen one'sunderstanding of L1-to-L2 transfer at the interactional level,especially in terms of sociocultural norms of conversation.

Synopsis in detail:

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer

- in this chapter, Itakura reviews the literature in order to gaininsights into (1) whether research evidence is to be found tosupport the widely held assumption that Japanese men dominatetheir female compatriots during their L1 conversation, (2) howgender dominance has been investigated in contexts outsideJapan, and (3) whether patterns of gender dominance in L1conversation are also observed in L2 conversation. Thesequestions are discussed under the headings of language andgender in Japanese culture, conversational dominance and genderas well as pragmatic transfer of intercultural norms.

The language of Japanese women in non-traditional roles seems todiffer both from stereotypes of feminine language and also frompowerful male language. Thus, the status of women in Japanesesociety appears to be changing, albeit slowly and these changesseem to be reflected in women's language. Mizutani (1981) andMizutani and Mizutani (1987), for example, remark that themodernisation of Japan and its society should eventually lead tolinguistic unification between male and female speech. Theyobserve an increasing number of Japanese male speakers placingthe honorific 'o' in front of nouns which has traditionally regardeda feature of female speech. On the other hand, even an increasingtrend towards masculization of language among young Japanesegirls can be noted, too, for instance using 'boku' when referring tothe first person 'I', a term traditionally categorised as exclusivelymale speech. That is why women are gradually becoming moreassertive and increasingly participate in situations previouslyrecognised as sole male domains.

Chapter 3: Analysing conversational dominance

- outlines an analytical framework for conversational dominancebased on a critical synthesis of insights from the fields ofConversation Analysis, the so-called Birmingham school ofdiscourse analysis and dialogical analysis. Itakura discusses howdominance in conversation can be identified along threedimensions: sequential, participatory and quantitative. On thedimensions of sequential and participatory dominance, localinstances of controlling action are identified in terms ofcontrolling actions, which are followed by complying actions, i.e.successful actions, or non-complying actions, i.e. attemptedcontrolling action. In sequential dominance, controlling actionsare identified at the level of turns. Quantitative dominance isanalysed by comparing the total number of words uttered by eachspeaker. In cases where the results from these three dimensionsdiffer, Itakura considers sequential dominance the strongestindicator of conversational dominance as it is most closely relatedto topic development.

The analytical framework proposed in this chapter allowsfollowing Itakura the investigation whether a speaker dominatesthe other speaker during a conversation, however, it is designedexclusively to capture broad patterns based on quantifiablefeatures. That is why it is Itakura stresses the importance thatthe results of quantitative analysis based on the presentedframework are interpreted in the light of qualitative analysis.

- in this chapter Itakura uses the analytical framework toinvestigate (1) whether Japanese men dominate Japanese womenin L1 and (2) whether patterns of gender and dominance aresimilar in L1 and L2. The results indicate that the twoaforementioned hypotheses are not supported by the results fromthe conversational data set. There is no evidence that the malespeakers in this data set dominate the female speakers in L1 orL2. Nevertheless, it can be observed that there is someinconsistency between the results for sequential dominance andthose for quantitative dominance. However, there is a consistentpattern that males tend to speak more words relative to females inL2 than in L1. With regard to the comparison across the threedimensions (sequential, participatory and quantitative dominancerespectively), there is a discrepancy between the results insequential and quantitative dominance, a similar discrepancyapplies to the results between sequential and participatorydominance in both L1 and L2. The results show that therelationship between males and females may or may not be thesame across L1 and L2 depending on the males-females dyad.

These results raise the following questions which are discussedmore detailed in the following chapters:

(1) What is the relationship among the three dimensions ofconversational dominance?(2) How can one explain the fact that speakers behave differentlyin L1 and L2, and that male speakers are less dominant in L2than in L1?(3) Does the fact that the three hypotheses are not supported forthis data set mean that the validity of the analytical framework isto be questioned?

Chapter 5: Dimensions of conversational dominance

- in this chapter Itakura establishes whether the treatment ofsequential dominance as the most essential dimension ofconversational dominance is justified on the basis of a detaileddescriptive analysis of part of the data furnished. Furthermoreshe discusses how consistencies and inconsistencies betweensequential and quantitative dominance can be explained as wellas the validity of treating participatory dominance as anindependent dimension from sequential dominance. This analysisis based on the L1 data, which is translated semantically intoEnglish. As a result, Itakura's assumption that sequentialdominance is a stronger indicator of conversational dominancethan participatory one and quantitative dominance is proves to besupported by qualitative analysis of the data.

- in this chapter Itakura examines the relationship betweenconversational styles (self-oriented vs. other-oriented) by focusingon how male speakers and female speakers develop topic by usinginitiations. She does so by sub-categorising the initiationsobserved in the two dyads as different initiation types may berelated to different conversational styles and strategies. ThusItakura uses Tsui's system which she regards currently the mostrefined categorisation of interactional moves. In Tsui's system,initiation moves are divided into four classes of acts: elicitations,requestives, directives and informatives. These are furtherdivided into sub-classes, e.g., the class of elicitation is subdividedinto elicit:agree, elicit:inform and so on. Itakura follows theinitiation types informative, elicit:agree and elicit:inform.

- following the examination of L1 to L2 transfer of informativemoves, in this chapter Itakura analyses how types of elicitations,elicit:agree and elicit:inform, are used differently by malespeakers and female speakers in L1 and L2 conversations.

In Japanese, utterances seeking agreement are typically made byattaching the particle 'nee' to the end of an utterance or byappending the clipped verb forms 'janai' or 'jan' -these are clippedverb forms of 'dewa nai', which can be translated as 'isn't it' or'don't you think'. Like elicit:agree in English, moves appendedwith 'nee', 'janai' or 'jan' can be used to seek agreement when thetopic and information are already shared between the twospeakers. Apart from syntactic characteristics, Japaneseelicit:agrees also differ from English elicit:agrees in thatagreement may be sought for propositions that are not self-evidently true. 'Nee' is frequently uesd by japanese speakrers forthis purpose and this seems to be related to a characteristic ofJapanese communication, emphasizing the creation of sharedfeelings and empathy. Japanese speakers even tend to use 'nee' toseek agreement, engagement or empathy token and to checkwhether what they say is mutually shared and agreed upon by theother speaker/listener, even when propositions are not obvious tothe interlocutor. By doing so, 'nee' communicates explicitly thespeaker's desire to establish a shared opinion/idea with therespective hearer.

English elicit:agree and Japanese elicit:agree are similar in thatboth can be thought of as consisting essentially of an informative,where the speaker makes some proposition, and an additionalsyntactic element (tag question or word order change in English)or interactional particle ('nee' or 'jan' in Japanese). However, theydiffer in that English elicit:agree moves involve syntactically morecomplicated production mechanisms than Japanese and in thatJapanese elicit:agree may seek agreement or solicit empathy foror involvement in a proposition which cannot be assumed to beself-evident to the interlocutor.

Concerning L1 to L2 transfer of elicit:agrees and informatives aresimilar in that both express the speaker's proposition and prospectan appropriate response. While the male speakers as well as thefemale speakers in Itakura's study differ with respect to their useof elicit:agrees in L1 in terms of frequency and interactional style,they are similar in that neither speaker makes elicit:agrees in L2.

As the study furthermore shows that, on the one hand, the totalnumber of informatives and elicit:agrees is smaller in L2 than inL1, and on the other hand, the difference ins larger for the malespeakers than for the female speakers, this suggests that it maybe more difficult to make chains of these two types of moves tocontrol topic in L2 conversations than in L1 conversation.

Eventually, the fact that the male speakers' drop in the totalnumber of informatives and elicit:agrees from L1 to L2 is greaterthat that for the female speakers supports the Itakura'shypothesis that the male speakers' dominance in L1 is related totheir self-oriented interactional style, since their informatives andelicit:agrees tend to be used as strategies for creating stories aboutthemselves.

As a conclusion from the aforementioned findings, the femalespeakers' other-oriented interactional styles account for theirdominance in L2. This appears to be related to the male speakers'failure to use informatives strategically thus creating a need forthe female speakers to do facilitatory work so that the maleinterlocutors' topics will be developed. That is why the analysissupports the point made by Coates (1996) and others that mentend to talk about themselves and use questions to seekinformation, while women tend to show concern for what otherspeakers have to say and use questions to invite the others to talkand expand the other speaker's story.

Chapter 8: Conclusion

Itakura's empirical study does not find any clear pattern of maledominance, maybe due to the fact that the male and femalespeakers participating in the study are students in the sameacademic year of the same Japanese university attending thesame course. Besides, they are not related to each other throughhierarchical working relationships. That is why the absence ofmale dominance among the subjects suggests that the traditionalview on gender dominance in Japanese language and societyshould be questioned.

Critical evaluation:

Itakura's study addresses the implication of the interaction ofgender dominance and pragmatic transfer for Japanese speakerson the basis of developing and applying a framework for analysingconversational dominance. In my humble opinion, her book doesabsolutely contribute to one's understanding of gender andinteraction in - as she herself describes - in three main ways:

(1) Quantitative data in regard to conversational dominance needsto be interpreted in the light of qualitative analysis concernedwith the speakers' conversational styles, goals and strategies andwith social and cultural aspects of the mutual construction ofmeanings in everyday conversation.

(2) Her study provides empirical evidence on gender andinteraction on the basis of recorded conversation that is -according to Itakura - lacking in studies of Japanese women'slanguage to date. The results call into question the widely heldassumption that Japanese women's language is indicative of theirlower social status and suggests an alternative view that gender isa social variable leading to dominance only when it is compoundedwith other social variables such as social position and age.

By adopting the integrated approach within her study, Itakuraproves to demonstrate that the construct of conversationaldominance is in fact closely related to the notion of conversationalstyles, even though the two concepts are often seen as indichotomous.

(3) Last but not least, Itakura's study contributes to research onpragmatic transfer in two respects: (1) investigating the transferof interactional norms, in particular, patterns of dominance; (2)investigating pragmatic transfer on the basis of direct comparisonof L1 and L2 conversations involving the same pairs of speakers,which, according to Ellis (1994) 'is the only reliable way todetermine the extent of L1 to L2 transfer'.

References:

Bergvall, Victoria L. (1999) An Agenda for Language and GenderResearch for the Start of the New Millennium. In: Linguistikonline 2, 1/99: Language and Gender (http://www.linguistik-online.com/2_99).

Reviewer's Bio: Guido Oebel (PhD in linguistics) is a nativeGerman and currently employed as an associate professor forGerman as a Foreign Language and FLL with SagaNational University and as a visiting professor with KurumeUniversity, both on the Southern island of Kyushu/Japan. Hismain areas of research are: comparative language studies (interalia Indo-European - Japanese), German as a Foreign Language(DaF), FLL, sociolinguistics (inter alia German dialects), bilinguism, and adult language education (action-orientation,learner- centeredness, learning by teaching).